[Prof Ray]

Gentlemen,

This is my first post, and before I begin, I'd like to thank everyone who contributes to this forum. I've learned a lot over the past few years, and much of my sartorial knowledge comes from the advice you've provided and the experiences you've been gracious enough to share.

I'm currently looking for shoes/boots that will see a lot of use next spring - I'll be doing a lot of outdoor walking in several northern European cities and expect to encounter a fair amount of rain and probably at least a little snow. I have my eye on several candidates, and recently ran across a few pair that are blake stitched. Initially, I dismissed them.

But now I'm really curious as to whether anyone has actually had adverse experiences wearing blake stitched (not blake-rapid) footwear in wet conditions. I own multiple pairs of shoes of varying quality and construction and have never noticed my blake stitched shoes to be less waterproof (at least, my socks never have become damp!), but I also don't wear them for long periods of time in wet or snowy weather. I suspect that the material from which the sole is made (rubber or dainite vs. leather) is the critical factor, but would love to hear about others' experiences.

Am I courting disaster? Should I just move along to a nice, solid, pair of goodyear welted shoes?

 

[JBierly]

This isn't a trick question - right? Blake stitching leaks. I admit I don't own any blake stitched shoes, but if it's weather resistance you are seeking why not get a pair of boots with rubber soles and storm welting? Welcome to the forum.

 

[eagle2250]

A veteran of almost three decades of Indiana winters, I can think of very few shoe designs made 'gracefully' endure the frozen slush of such rigors. My most successful countermeasure(s) for avoiding wet feet and damaged shoes was wearing galoshes over my fine leather shoes. Good luck in your efforts!

 

[frankmartin]

https://www.heddels.com/2018/05/all-the-shoe-constructions-around-the-world/

Blake stitched shoes are sewn through the sole, upper, and footbed. With a leather sole, they're bound to get water inside if worn in extreme conditions. There are basically tiny holes through the sole all the way into the inside of the shoe.

If you have a blake stitched shoe (or a handsewn) with a leather midsole which has a rubber sole cemented to it (ie, the rubber sole is not sewn through), it would be just fine in wet weather. The holes are covered up.

 

[Prof Ray]

Thank you - that is very helpful. (And thanks to Eagle, as well - I do need to invest in a good pair of galoshes!). It does seem that what matters most is the nature of the sole.

 

[eagle2250]

^^
PS: Welcome to the forum...looking forward to your future postings!

 

[Nick V]

I agree, Galoshes are very helpful in such conditions. However, some won't wear them because they don't like the looks of them.
Another option would be to add a sole guard. That thin piece of material will cover the sole stitches preventing moisture from bleeding through the sole area.

 

[Prof Ray]

This is a excellent point - I hadn't considered adding a sole guard or something similar.

I still wonder, though, how impractical blake-stitched would be. Given the holes extend all the way through, theoretically water should indeed be able to migrate upwards. But the threads themselves are likely to be nylon (I think - I'm not sure what material is actually used in this context) or something else that is not absorbent. And if the sole is of sufficient thickness and composed of rubber, the material surrounding the threads should be constrictive, leaving little in way of a passage way for water. Poking around the web reveals some support for this perspective - I've encountered several passages like the following: "Cons: Soles are less waterproof because the stitching allows water to seep in and the thinness of the sole wicks water into the shoe. A rubber sole would eliminate this issue, however."

Frankly, I was hoping someone with first hand experience would write in and report definitely that their socks did indeed become damp after tromping around a city on a rainy afternoon in blake stitched shoes. This might have put to rest the part of my brain that wants to buy a new (but unnecessary) pair of shoes!

Thanks all for the comments and the welcomes. I'll try to keep things shorter in the future.

 

[Hebrew Barrister]

This is a excellent point - I hadn't considered adding a sole guard or something similar.

I still wonder, though, how impractical blake-stitched would be. Given the holes extend all the way through, theoretically water should indeed be able to migrate upwards. But the threads themselves are likely to be nylon (I think - I'm not sure what material is actually used in this context) or something else that is not absorbent. And if the sole is of sufficient thickness and composed of rubber, the material surrounding the threads should be constrictive, leaving little in way of a passage way for water. Poking around the web reveals some support for this perspective - I've encountered several passages like the following: "Cons: Soles are less waterproof because the stitching allows water to seep in and the thinness of the sole wicks water into the shoe. A rubber sole would eliminate this issue, however."

Frankly, I was hoping someone with first hand experience would write in and report definitely that their socks did indeed become damp after tromping around a city on a rainy afternoon in blake stitched shoes. This might have put to rest the part of my brain that wants to buy a new (but unnecessary) pair of shoes!

Thanks all for the comments and the welcomes. I'll try to keep things shorter in the future.

By all means, buy some new boots. But if your use is tromping around in the wet, get storm welted boots.

 

[Nick V]

This is a excellent point - I hadn't considered adding a sole guard or something similar.

I still wonder, though, how impractical blake-stitched would be. Given the holes extend all the way through, theoretically water should indeed be able to migrate upwards. But the threads themselves are likely to be nylon (I think - I'm not sure what material is actually used in this context) or something else that is not absorbent. And if the sole is of sufficient thickness and composed of rubber, the material surrounding the threads should be constrictive, leaving little in way of a passage way for water. Poking around the web reveals some support for this perspective - I've encountered several passages like the following: "Cons: Soles are less waterproof because the stitching allows water to seep in and the thinness of the sole wicks water into the shoe. A rubber sole would eliminate this issue, however."

Frankly, I was hoping someone with first hand experience would write in and report definitely that their socks did indeed become damp after tromping around a city on a rainy afternoon in blake stitched shoes. This might have put to rest the part of my brain that wants to buy a new (but unnecessary) pair of shoes!

Thanks all for the comments and the welcomes. I'll try to keep things shorter in the future.

The thread is made of braided polyester.

 

[Prof Ray]

Ah ha! - which is definitely not absorbent. Sounds like I should conduct an experiment the next time it rains...